Supreme Court clarifies remission process for life convicts: Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh (22 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 474

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Aniruddha Bose, J

Can a life convict be released prematurely without the consent of the presiding judge of the sentencing court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the premature release of a life convict. This judgment clarifies the role of the presiding judge’s opinion in the remission process and emphasizes the need for a reasoned approach when considering the release of prisoners serving life sentences. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Aniruddha Bose, J. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The petitioner, Ram Chander, was convicted for offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case arose from an incident where the petitioner and co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted and killed the complainant’s father and brother. The motive was suspected to be related to the confiscation of shisham wood and damage to a motorcycle and tractor, for which the accused blamed the complainant and his family.

The trial court convicted the petitioner on 7 December 2010. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction on 10 May 2013. A special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. After completing 16 years of imprisonment without remission, the petitioner applied for premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Jail Superintendent sought the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg, on whether the petitioner could be released on remission. The Special Judge opined against the release. The matter was then forwarded through various departments, with the Law Department also concluding that the petitioner could not be released because the presiding judge had given a negative opinion. Despite the petitioner completing 20 years of imprisonment with remission, the authorities maintained that the negative opinion of the presiding judge was a bar to his release.

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Concerns the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common object.
• Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968: This rule outlines the conditions for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. Specifically, it states:
  
  “Rule 358 – Premature Release of Prisoners Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
  
  (3)(A). The matter of every male or female prisoner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment after 17th December, 1978 and who are convicted under the punishable offences under Section 121, 132, 302, 307 and 396 of IPC or under any other criminal laws, in which capital punishment is one of the sentences, shall be taken into consideration for him/her premature release from the jail with this condition where such convict has completed the period of imprisonment of 14 years necessary sentence of imprisonment without remission subject to the consideration of such prisoners shall not be prohibited under legal provisions.
  
  (B) The matter to premature release of all other male prisoners serving the sentence of life imprisonment shall only be taken into consideration only in that condition if they have spent the period of minimum 14 years imprisonment without remission and if they have completed actual imprisonment of 10 years without remission.
  
  (D) The matter to premature release of all such prisoners serving the sentence of life imprisonment shall only be taken into consideration only in that condition if they have attained the age of 65 years and if they have completed actual imprisonment of 7 years without remission.”
• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Empowers the State Government to suspend or remit sentences. Sub-section (2) states:
  
  “Section 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences.
  
  (2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.”
• Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Imposes restrictions on the power of remission, stating that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence where death is a possible punishment cannot be released unless they have served at least 14 years of imprisonment.
  
  “433A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases .-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• A convict can be considered for premature release after completing 14 years, even without the presiding judge’s consent.
• The government has the discretion to seek the presiding judge’s opinion, but it is not mandatory.
• There is no clarity in Section 432(2) of the CrPC as to whether the presiding judge whose opinion is to be sought should be the same judge who recorded the conviction.
• The petitioner is entitled to be considered for premature release under Rule 358 (3) (A), (B), and (D) of the Prison Rules.
• While the government must seek the sentencing court’s opinion, it is not bound by it.
• The presiding judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons.
• The power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be informed, fair, and reasonable.
• The presiding judge did not consider the antecedents of the petitioner, conduct in prison, and the likelihood of committing a crime if released.
• The policy applicable at the time of conviction must be considered.
• The police must report on the nature of the crime, the chance of it being repeated, the convict’s potential to commit crime, the purpose of keeping the convict in prison, and the socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The petitioner’s case can only be considered under Rule 358 (3) (A) of the Prison Rules.
• The opinion of the presiding judge is binding on the government.
• The ultimate order of remission should be guided by the opinion of the presiding judge.
• A convict has a right to claim remission, but not an absolute right to it.
• The government has the sole discretion to remit or refuse to remit a sentence, and no writ can be issued to direct the government to release a prisoner.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

• Whether the opinion of the presiding judge of the sentencing court is binding on the government when considering an application for premature release of a life convict.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2014) 4 SCC 242 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to argue that the government is not bound by the opinion of the sentencing court. The Court clarified that while the government must seek the opinion of the presiding judge, it is not bound by it.
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight that the opinion of the presiding judge must be accompanied by reasons. The Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing that a reasoned opinion is essential for a fair and informed decision-making process.
• State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The Court reaffirmed that the decision to grant remission must be informed, fair, and reasonable.
• Bhagwat Saran v. State of UP, Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1145-1149 of 1982 dated 6 December 1982 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to argue that a bald statement without reasons cannot be accepted. The Court agreed, stating that the opinion of the presiding judge must be reasoned.
• State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to argue that the policy applicable at the time of conviction must be considered. The Court acknowledged this principle, emphasizing the importance of considering the rules applicable at the time of the petitioner’s conviction.
• Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight the factors that must be considered for premature release. The Court reiterated these factors, emphasizing their importance in the decision-making process.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 470 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to argue that the government has the sole discretion to remit or refuse to remit a sentence. The Court acknowledged this principle but clarified that this discretion is subject to judicial review.
• Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 14 SCC 114 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to argue that no writ can be issued to direct the government to release a prisoner. The Court reaffirmed this principle but clarified that the court can direct the authorities to reconsider the representation of the convict.
• Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize the factors that govern the grant of remission. The Court reiterated these factors, emphasizing their importance in the decision-making process.
• Yoshevel v. State of Bombay, Crl. Writ Petition No 273 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay): This case was cited by the respondents to argue that the opinion of the presiding judge is binding on the government. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view.
• Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of Bihar, Crl. Writ Jurisdiction Case No 272 of 2017 (High Court of Patna): This case was cited to argue that the opinion of the presiding judge is not binding but is only a guiding factor. The Supreme Court agreed with the view that the opinion of the presiding judge is not binding.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Concerns the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of their common object.
• Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 1968: This rule outlines the conditions for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment.
• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Empowers the State Government to suspend or remit sentences.
• Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Imposes restrictions on the power of remission.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2014) 4 SCC 242 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to clarify that while the government must seek the opinion of the presiding judge, it is not bound by it.
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the opinion of the presiding judge must be accompanied by reasons.
• State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to highlight that the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
• Bhagwat Saran v. State of UP, Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1145-1149 of 1982 dated 6 December 1982 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to emphasize that a bald statement without reasons cannot be accepted.
• State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the policy applicable at the time of conviction must be considered.
• Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to highlight the factors that must be considered for premature release.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 470 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to acknowledge that the government has the sole discretion to remit or refuse to remit a sentence.
• Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 14 SCC 114 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to clarify that no writ can be issued to direct the government to release a prisoner, but the court can direct reconsideration.
• Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626 (Supreme Court of India)* – The Court cited this case to emphasize the factors that govern the grant of remission.
• Yoshevel v. State of Bombay, Crl. Writ Petition No 273 of 2019 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay)* – The Court disagreed with the view of the High Court that the opinion of the presiding judge is binding.
• Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of Bihar, Crl. Writ Jurisdiction Case No 272 of 2017 (High Court of Patna)* – The Court agreed with the view of the High Court that the opinion of the presiding judge is not binding.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:

• Rule of Law: The Court emphasized that while the executive has the power to grant remission, this power must be exercised fairly and reasonably, in accordance with the rule of law.
• Judicial Review: The Court asserted its power to review the government’s decision on remission to ensure that it is not arbitrary.
• Importance of Reasoned Decisions: The Court stressed that the opinion of the presiding judge must be reasoned and take into account all relevant factors for granting remission.
• Procedural Safeguards: The Court highlighted that the procedural safeguards under Section 432(2) of the CrPC are essential to prevent arbitrary remissions.
• Factors for Remission: The Court reiterated the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 (Supreme Court of India) that must be considered for granting remission, including the nature of the crime, the probability of it being repeated, and the socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of statutory provisions, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while the government must seek the opinion of the presiding judge, it is not bound by it. The opinion of the presiding judge must be reasoned and take into account all the relevant factors for granting remission. If the opinion is not reasoned or does not consider the relevant factors, the government may request the presiding judge to reconsider the matter.

The Court observed that the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg, was inadequate because it did not provide reasons and did not consider the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 (Supreme Court of India). The Court directed the Special Judge, Durg, to provide a fresh opinion with adequate reasoning. The Court also directed the State of Chhattisgarh to take a final decision on the petitioner’s application for remission within a month of receiving the fresh opinion.

The Court quoted Section 432(2) of the CrPC, which states: “Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion…”

The court also quoted from Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law): “[005.06] The exercise of a discretionary power is subject to judicial review. The principles of judicial review of discretionary powers are well settled. A discretionary power must not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. It must be exercised reasonably, fairly and in good faith. The power must be exercised for the purpose for which it is conferred and must not be abused. A discretionary power must be exercised in accordance with the law and the rules of natural justice. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on irrelevant considerations or extraneous matters. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a misdirection in law or a misapprehension of facts. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on mala fides or bias. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to take into account relevant considerations. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to exercise discretion. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to give reasons for the decision. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to act within the limits of the power conferred. The exercise of a discretionary power must not be based on a failure to act within the time limits prescribed.”

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that while the government is required to seek the opinion of the presiding judge of the sentencing court when considering an application for premature release of a life convict, the government is not bound by that opinion. The opinion of the presiding judge is merely a guiding factor, and the government must make its own decision based on all the relevant factors. However, the opinion of the presiding judge must be reasoned and take into account all the relevant factors for granting remission. If the opinion is not reasoned or does not consider the relevant factors, the government may request the presiding judge to reconsider the matter.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta of the judgment includes the following:

• The power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be informed, fair, and reasonable.
• The government must consider the policy applicable at the time of conviction.
• The police must report on the nature of the crime, the chance of it being repeated, the convict’s potential to commit crime, the purpose of keeping the convict in prison, and the socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
• The government must consider the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595 (Supreme Court of India) while deciding on remission.
• The court can direct the authorities to reconsider the representation of the convict.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has significant implications for the remission process of life convicts. It clarifies that:

• The opinion of the presiding judge is not binding on the government.
• The opinion of the presiding judge must be reasoned and take into account all relevant factors.
• The government must make its own decision based on all the relevant factors.
• The power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be informed, fair, and reasonable.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that respects both the rights of convicts and the interests of society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh provides a much-needed clarification on the remission process for life convicts. It establishes that while the opinion of the presiding judge is a crucial input, it is not the final word. The government must exercise its discretion reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This judgment ensures that the remission process is not arbitrary and that the rights of convicts are protected, while also safeguarding the interests of society. This judgment also emphasizes the importance of reasoned decision-making in the remission process. The court’s ruling ensures that the release of prisoners is based on a thorough and fair assessment of all relevant factors, rather than on the sole opinion of a single individual. This judgment is a significant step towards a more transparent and accountable remission process.